[2004] KEHC 704 (KLR)
The court found that the Objector failed to discharge her burden of proof as required under Order 21 Rules 56 and 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She merely asserted ownership of the attached goods without providing any supporting evidence or documentation. Furthermore, the consent order indicated that the surety,...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2004] KEHC 704 (KLR)
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Braeburn Limited; Defendant: Captain Kungu Muigai; Respondent: Ngengi Muigai
- Court
- High Court
- Court Station
- High Court at Nairobi (Milimani Law Courts)
- Jurisdiction
- Kenya
- Case Number
- ? 478 of 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Case / Ruling on Objector's Application Under Order 21 Rules 56 and 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules
- Outcome
- application dismissed with costs
- Judges
- DW Mbuteti
- Legal Topics
- Execution of Decree, Objector Proceedings, Burden of Proof, Attachment of Property
- Source Language
- en
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Braeburn Limited
Plaintiff
Captain Kungu Muigai
Defendant
Ngengi Muigai
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Case / Ruling on Objector's Application Under Order 21 Rules 56 and 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Objector has established a legal or equitable interest in the attached goods.
- 2 Whether the Objector has discharged the burden of proof required under Order 21 Rules 56 and 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the Objector failed to discharge her burden of proof as required under Order 21 Rules 56 and 57 of the Civil Procedure Rules. She merely asserted ownership of the attached goods without providing any supporting evidence or documentation. Furthermore, the consent order indicated that the surety, not the Objector, was the occupier of the premises where the attachment was made. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the court concluded that the Objector had not established any legal or equitable interest in the attached property. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.
Court Disposition
application dismissed with costs
Orders
- The Objector's application is dismissed with costs to the Plaintiff/Decree-Holder.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
16 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF KENYA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KENYA
AT NAIROBI
COMMERCIAL DIVISION, MILIMANI
CIVIL CASE NO. 478 OF 2002
BRAEBURN LIMITED……………………………………………………PLAINTIFF
VERSUS
CAPTAIN KUNGU MUIGAI…………………………………….…….DEFENDANT
R U L I N G
The Objector’s application by chamber summons dated 8th September, 2004 filed herein is very badly drafted. That is understandable as it was drawn by the Objector in person. What is surprising is that her learned counsel, Mr. Kuria, decided to proceed with it as it is. It does not even state under what provisions of the Civil Procedure Rules it is brought. But from what was stated by learned counsel during arguments, it is an application under Rules 56 and 57 of Order 21 of the Civil Procedure Rules (the Rules). It is essentially brought upon the grounds that the attached goods belong to the Objector and not to the Defendant/Judgment-Debtor who is her brother-in-law. The Plaintiff/Decree-Holder opposes the application as indicated in the grounds of objection dated 17th November, 2004.
An Objector proceeding under Rule 56 aforesaid must establish his legal or equitable interest in the whole or part of the property attached in execution of decree. Needles to say, to do this he must bring forth some evidence that will tilt the balance of probabilities in his favour. In the instant case, beyond the statement that the attached goods are her personal property, the Objector has not attempted at all to show how those goods are her personal properties. The execution itself was against the Judgment- Debtor’s surety, not against the Judgment-Debtor himself, and was levied under section 92(a) of the Civil Procedure Act, Cap. 21. The consent order dated 4th November, 2003 by which the surety, one NGENGI MUIGAI, bound himself to satisfy the decree on behalf of the Judgment-Debtor, shows that he is the occupier of the premises where attachment was made. The Objector has not exhibited any document tending to show that she is the occupier of the said premises.
In the premises the Objector has not discharged her burden. This application is without merit. It is hereby dismissed with costs. Order accordingly.
DATED AND SIGNED AT NAIROBI THIS 8TH DAY OF MARCH, 2005.
H.P.G. WAWERU
JUDGE
DELIVERED THIS 11TH DAY OF MARCH, 2005.